I'm confused by Q23 because doesn't sanction also mean against the law? Like a sanction imposed on another country is a bad thing, yet somehow we are supposed to assume that we should be taking the positive connotation for that word instead of the negative? #help #feedback

Yep! Go back to the theory and approach page of this section they have it listed as this:

"So keep your eyes on the ball. The correct answer is the assumption that is necessary to the argument. Sometimes that assumption will also strengthen the argument. Sometimes that assumption will also justify (be sufficient for) the argument. That’s fine. That’s not preclusive of the answer being right but that’s also not what makes the answer right. The right answer is the one that is necessary. Everything else is irrelevant. Often the correct answer will be incredibly weak. It will hardly improve the reasoning at all. Again, who cares. As long as it’s necessary, it’s right.

What about the wrong answers? They are unnecessary. They may strengthen or even justify the argument but so what? Worse still, sometimes you’ll encounter wrong answers that don’t even strengthen the argument but merely pretend to do so. Those answers would be wrong even in Strengthen questions so of course they’re wrong here. One last trick the test writers like to use is to provide answers that sound weak so they have the appearance of being necessary without having the substance of being actually necessary. These are some of the most attractive wrong answers."

I am kind of confused. #help #feedback

If public outcry → stricter laws and stricter laws → improvement in most polluted areas then doesn’t it mean that public outcry → stricter laws → improvement in most polluted areas?

Why can we not infer that they were the ones that voiced the outcry that lead to stricter laws and overall improvements in most polluted areas?

I am still not understanding the conditional relationship that was drawn. If ES + PIL are the conditions needed to satisfy successful administration, how can you just jump over and say ES → successful administration? Isn't that not filling in the conjunction?

#help #feedback

I think I understand what the lesson is trying to say, but are we supposed to just believe that even if the arguments are "false," as long as they are "valid" we just have to accept the argument? #help

Within the three examples given, the disney scenario seemed to have the least amount of doubt since there is no other answer that could possibly be correct.

This however does not seem to be the case for the tiger and trash bin scenario because we are forced to make inferences or come up with our own premises that help to support the conclusion. In the tiger scenario, we are left wondering how the premise (after all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people) supports the conclusion (not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet). There seems to be another premise that needs to be defined (ie. tigers are an example of a mammal that some people have tried to keep as pets) before the argument can fully stand criticism. In the trash bin scenario, I would say that it is a similar instance where there seems to be support missing or more premises that need to be defined before the argument can be called persuasive.

I am not 100% convinced by my answer, but I feel as though the trash bin scenario had weaker support because it forces us to make inferences that we might know to be true (ie. the cat must have done it because the cat was near the trash bin and was licking their paws) while the tiger example is based on facts that are widely known, meaning we are able to draw support from our own experiences that we know to be true (ie. a tiger is a mammal and they are aggressive in nature). But I am also open to any other interpretations!